US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Notices

Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

You talking about the republicans, the democrats, or both? Both sides like to accuse the other side of running towards fascism.

I'm talking about the entire political system. At this point, the Republicans and the Democrats are just like different factions of the same party, and they both seem intent on stripping us of our civil liberties: one by one.

If I remember correctly, the general Republican policy is not to actually debate with the Democratic Party. It is more to show up the Democratic Party and throw out a lot of bluster...without actually debating anything.

Of course, all talk before the debate was that undecided voters are scared and want to see someone charismatic that says they'll fix everything. Like always Romney didn't detail anything and said a lot of things like he always does while changing his views again. The debate isn't about talking, it's about looking good and that's where Obama messed up.

Of course, all talk before the debate was that undecided voters are scared and want to see someone charismatic that says they'll fix everything. Like always Romney didn't detail anything and said a lot of things like he always does while changing his views again. The debate isn't about talking, it's about looking good and that's where Obama messed up.

Isn't that what people said about Obama 4 years ago? All hope and no substance?

I'm pretty sure if Romney became president, he'd just get tossed around like a rag-doll, not really being a leader but just doing the bidding of the GOP.

The issue is that he would have zero credibility internationally. Domestically he would just obey the GOP, but leaders like Putin aren't going to take kindly to Romney's style of lying to people in front of their faces.

The Roosevelts were considered traitors to their class. They both came from 1% backgrounds, and they were financed by the elite who expected them to go into office on their behalf. Those elite never expected that these two would set in motion what would eventually create the middle class and progressive era.

For this reason, despite their many flaws, they are considered heroes to the average American. They could have cemented the Gilded Age, but instead they took a sledgehammer to it. Obama is nothing compared to that - he simply lacks the fire needed to do what is right instead of what is easy. He's not a fighter. That's the reason progressives are so unhappy with him.

Both are based on the people doing nothing. Despite all the whining I've been seeing, in the end it's the people's fault for who they elect. Right now to me it seems people are simply escaping responsibility.

Both are based on the people doing nothing. Despite all the whining I've been seeing, in the end it's the people's fault for who they elect. Right now to me it seems people are simply escaping responsibility.

Last I checked, the people don't decide:

1) Who runs
2) Who each party chooses as its representative
3) Who gets to vote at the national conventions for who gets to be the representative

The most they can do in the process is vote in the straw polls, which can mean nothing due to fraud (happened in at least two instances during this election year if I recall) or mean nothing due to who the 1% is willing to pour money into.

Like it or not, you need money for elections. A lot of money. And there's no way anyone can compete against the 1% without being the 1%, in which case it's not "the people" who are deciding things anyway!

1) Who runs
2) Who each party chooses as its representative
3) Who gets to vote at the national conventions for who gets to be the representative

The most they can do in the process is vote in the straw polls, which can mean nothing due to fraud (happened in at least two instances during this election year if I recall) or mean nothing due to who the 1% is willing to pour money into.

Like it or not, you need money for elections. A lot of money. And there's no way anyone can compete against the 1% without being the 1%, in which case it's not "the people" who are deciding things anyway!

What about primaries? Register with the Democrats (or Republicans if they take your fancy) and vote to determine who the nominee will be. If you vote in the primary, you determine all 3 things.

1) Who runs
2) Who each party chooses as its representative
3) Who gets to vote at the national conventions for who gets to be the representative

The most they can do in the process is vote in the straw polls, which can mean nothing due to fraud (happened in at least two instances during this election year if I recall) or mean nothing due to who the 1% is willing to pour money into.

Like it or not, you need money for elections. A lot of money. And there's no way anyone can compete against the 1% without being the 1%, in which case it's not "the people" who are deciding things anyway!

Yeah, it isn't so simple as just saying the voters are at fault. Like GDB said, the people who run for president these days (who make it to the conventions) are the ones that get good financial backing.

I mean, for instance, we have Mitt going against Obama. I'd rather have someone like Jon Huntsman trying to become president, but the rich folks who back the GOP don't want him, they want Mitt because he will carry out their GOP agenda better than Jon Huntsman could. When we have people running for president, it isn't even a matter of who is the best for the candidate position anymore, it is about who has the money. For republican candidates, the one that makes it the farthest is the one the very wealthy will support.

It isn't the "people's fault" if there's been a concerted effort to pollute the process with money such that only monied approval gets one into the primaries.

What are the "people" supposed to do, shoot the appointed judges who make such devastating rulings? At some point, this starts sounding like "blame the rape victim" when the blame is on the perpetrators - the ultra-wealthy barons who want to undermine the system.

The people are going to have to fix it but getting 300 million people moving in one direction is a lot of inertia to overcome.

What about primaries? Register with the Democrats (or Republicans if they take your fancy) and vote to determine who the nominee will be. If you vote in the primary, you determine all 3 things.

No, you cannot decide who will run. Those who will run are on the ballet. Those who aren't, won't be. Even if you attempt a write-in campaign, you won't succeed. You might win one state, but what will that accomplish? Nothing.

Pretty sure no one openly campaigns as a "delegate" for national conventions these days. You pretty much get in by being picked, which is why they're often the likes of Jets Owner Woody Johnson.

The people don't choose who those people choose, either. You can hope they vote the way you want, but they don't have to.

And even then, primaries mean jack squat if you aren't one of the first four or five states to hold their primaries. By the time 90% of them come around, most candidates have dropped out, or they don't even make it on to the ballet.